Nader campaign is fundraising on Obama's rejection of public financing

CNN: June 20, 2008
Nader campaign hits Obama in new fundraising pitch

(CNN) – A presidential rival is fundraising off of Barack Obama’s decision to reject public financing for the general election, using the move to fuel allegations the presumptive Democratic nominee is a policy-shifting flip-flopper.

But it isn’t John McCain.

Ralph Nader’s campaign sent an e-mail to supporters Friday that paints Obama as too close to big business and special interests. “Ralph Nader stands for shifting the power from the big corporations back to the people. Period. Full stop. End of story,” writes the Nader campaign. “Contrast that with Senator Obama.”

The message highlights what it says are changes in the Illinois senator’s positions on public spending limits, NAFTA and economic populism, and says that Obama has surrounded himself with “veterans of the military industrial complex status quo.” It does not mention his Republican counterpart, John McCain.

“We're at six percent nationwide in the most recent CNN poll. We're going to be on ten state ballots by the end of June. And we're shooting for 40 by the end of the summer,” writes the Nader campaign. “Together, we are moving forward. And together, we will make a difference in November.”...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/nader-campaign-hits-obama-in-new-fundraising-pitch/

Nader's right to use this as a campaign point, though I think he's exaggerating Obama's indebtedness to corporations by failing to distinguish it from McCain's.

He's all ego at this point, and he didn't have a problem taking money from Republicans whose platform was the polar opposite of his.

...that welcomes being trounced in election after election, just to hear the sound of five hundred people cheering together.

no one would give a good goddamn.

last time around. Weren't they fundraising for your ugly a$$?

It's obscene that either party would try to profit by captive votes and prevent people from voting from someone who represents their interests more.

Obama needs to live up to his unspoken promise that he, Obama, "stands for shifting the power from the big corporations back to the people". If Obama can't do that then this is his election to lose.

Why be angry at Nader? I'm glad he's running to keep Obama from shifting too far to the center right.

:hide:

the republicans.

They're both beholden to the corporations instead of the people.

Just look at FISA, the topic du jour. Look at Lieberman parading around with McCain while still retaining Democratic Committee appointments.

It's a mess and I personally agree with Nader's statement (which you mistakenly misquoted) that there isn't enough of a difference. If the difference were that huge, we wouldn't be reduced to screaming SCOTUS at people when it comes to voting.

I'm voting for Obama because that not so huge difference means a great deal to some pretty defenseless people who don't have lifeboats but I'm not happy about caving in on my principles and rubber-stamping another neoliberal.

Were you happy when the Democrats rubber-stamped the war? Torture? FISA? Bankruptcy? NAFTA? Or this week when Pelosi stripped some important provisions that would prevent the President from attacking Iran without Congressional approval (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3470769)?

I was mortified and ashamed. I'm not proud of the Democratic Party. As an independent, I've worked my ass off for Obama and will continue to do so but if Democrats can't understand our concerns we may decide just to go back to building from the ground up instead. I hope people will take the time to think about where our failings are and force our representatives to represent US so Nader's statement won't apply anymore.

If you read his book "Crashing the Party" (http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Ralph%20Nader&page=1) you'll not only understand where Nader was coming from with that statement but where many Liberals/Progressives people who won't vote for Democrats are coming from.

It's up to the Democratic Party to reform and bring them back so we can all kick some serious ass. I hope that day comes very soon.

As disappointed as I am with the Dems, I do not believe throwing my vote away, thus giving McCain the presidency, is going to achieve anything except to move the country *further* to the right and make it even harder for a true progressive to be elected into office.

The Right didn't take over in one swift movement and their damage cannot be undone in one swift movement.

I don't think most people on the Left do either. Not even Nader. Things would have been very different under Gore but the silver lining (no consolation I know) is that if Gore had been President, we the Democrats, wouldn't have paid close attention to what was going on in DC and learned just how much there is to fix.

Anyway, I agree with you. It took many steps to the Right to get us where we are so we'll need to force just as many steps to the Left before we can even start fixing some problems. I'd rather see a swift movement but it ain't gonna happen so I'll be pushing right next to you SCQ.

Kucinich was my first choice. But I knew it was a long shot. One step at a time I guess...

entitled to our positions. Just because yours isn't popular at DU doesn't mean you can't express it.

It's not on Nader that the system's broken. We've bitched about Nader for 8 years but no one's worked to changing the electoral system.

It's so frustrating. I have few fears expressing my opinion but thanks ;)

and let's not forget all the people who voted for Buchanan and even worse, but mysteriously forigiven by Democrats, all the Democrats who voted for Bush. There were many more of those than people who voted for Nader. I don't understand why people who tried to push this country to the Left get blamed but so-called Demcorats who danced with the devil get a pass and we continue to grovel after them :shrug:


The last 8 years have been a disaster but blaming Nader is too easy.

Anyway, I assume you just used that as a synonym for fraud. The SCOTUS could have prevented Bush. So could have Nader.

When Jeb promised Bush he'd deliver Florida, he meant it

Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4kOTXpGSfA

Some very creepy things took place.

Since then he's been on a megalomaniacal bender and the United States has been the battered spouse.

And as long as you don't consider yourself a "victim" for having an unpopular, but within the DU rules opinion, you are okay with me.

:rofl:

Never. One reason I like it here is because most people are willing to discuss things intelligently if you make a case and respect your right to your own opinion if you're not cramming it down their throats. Thanks again

After the elections, I'll probably leave and concentrate more on work on the streets. It's been a real experience supporting Obama with you guys :hug:

I would **love** for you to back that up with something other than truthiness. Doesn't pass the smell test with me.

Before Nader got in the race, Gore was sounding exactly like Lieberman and not someone you'd like. After Nader got into the race, Gore took a more populist stance. I really think it's time for Democrats to start honestly examining this question and quit running after that elusive center.

Obama figured out how to appeal to enough of the Left to minimize the anger on the left and get a strong, solid start. So did Dean. Dean got pushed out when he started going too far to the Left and responding more tothe people than the DC insiders who were trying to control the Primaries but Obama's past the danger point.

I can't convince you of anything but if you're interested just dig up all the left criticism of the 2000 elections on sites like Counterpunch. It was all documented even if we weren't too keen to give it any credence.

Look at Obama's disastrous statement about NAFTA yesterday. He said that because he feels safe. There's no one saying anything to the Left of him about NAFTA and his position just gets compared to McCain's. Compare his statement to Nader's and it would be a whole different ballpark. Do you think he would have dared make such a statement if Nader were competition right now?

I'm not here to defend Nader but I think we owe ourselves a frank examination of where we mess up so we can work on fixing it.

make one's self even more irrelevant at the same time?"

I rarely use this word, but:

FUCK YOU ALL TO HELL, RALPH.

We saw the difference.


I am going to say those percentage points matter. Obama did finagle campaign finace. Nader should be honest about that dime's worth of difference and be as clear as possible.

His desire to raise the issues which matter to liberal Democrats is commendable and make me not curse his name. His methods of raising the issue is to attack Democrats, I like not so much.


I hope Obama doesn't leave Nader alone like Gore did in 2000. Nader's voting base is within the Democratic Party.

doesn't Obama have a lot of small donors? To me, this shows his appeal to and regard for the people

I have a sister who donated $20. We might be able put some out for the GE, too. Both donations would get flushed away if he took government matching funds. They would be overwhelmed by the tricky financing procedures.
They sort of matter in this case.

Sorry Ralph, but the people aren't with you on this one.

(Of course I know--and of course they don't)

:hit:

See my message. My joke was taken from the Colbert Report.

I loved it so much I stole the joke and use it every chance I get.

:hi:

are driving Obama's campaign--why aren't you looking jealously over McCain's shoulder?

Oh, yeah, your ego blocks the view...